Veerappa Reddy vs. Ambujakshi
AI Summary
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has reinstated criminal proceedings that were prematurely quashed by the High Court. The apex court clarified crucial points regarding a Magistrate's power to take cognizance despite a police 'B-report' and the acceptability of explanations for delays in filing an FIR, ensuring that justice is not thwarted by procedural technicalities. This decision sends the case back to the High Court for a fresh and thorough consideration of its merits.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The appellant's mother lodged FIR No.205 of 2006. Post-investigation, police submitted a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. exonerating the accused. The appellant's mother then filed a protest petition, and the Magistrate subsequently took cognizance of the offence. Aggrieved, the accused filed Criminal Petition No.2882 of 2019 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The High Court, via an order dated 01.02.2023, allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings, citing two reasons: the Magistrate's failure to explicitly reject the 'B-report' and an unexplained 14-day delay in FIR registration. The Supreme Court, in this appeal, found both reasons given by the High Court to be erroneous, clarifying that cognizance implies rejection of the 'B-report' and that the FIR delay was explained by the complainant.
Timeline of Events
FIR No.205 lodged by the appellant's mother.
Police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. submitted, exonerating accused.
Protest Petition filed by appellant's mother; Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.
Accused preferred Criminal Petition No.2882 of 2019 before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
High Court passed impugned judgment and order, allowing the petition and quashing proceedings.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10695/2023 filed in Supreme Court.
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored Criminal Petition No.2882 of 2019 to the High Court for fresh decision.
Key Factual Findings
The Magistrate's act of taking cognizance inherently implies the rejection or non-acceptance of the police 'B-report'.
Source: Current Court Finding
The delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint was explained by the complainant (mother of the appellant) as being caused by the process of consulting her children.
Source: Current Court Finding
The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings based on the two reasons cited.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner (appellant) argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings. Specifically, the Magistrate's act of taking cognizance implicitly meant the rejection of the police's 'B-report', so an explicit rejection was not legally required. Furthermore, the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the complainant (appellant's mother) due to consultation with her children, rendering the High Court's second reason invalid.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondent contended that the High Court was correct in quashing the proceedings. Their arguments focused on the Magistrate's failure to explicitly reject the 'B-report' before taking cognizance, making the cognizance order illegal. They also argued that the 14-day delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained, suggesting possibilities of embellishment and afterthought. Additionally, they claimed the complaint was mala fide, initiated by the mother-in-law against the son-in-law and family members amidst other pending civil and criminal cases.
Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court found both reasons provided by the High Court for quashing the proceedings to be erroneous. Firstly, the Court reasoned that when a Magistrate takes cognizance, it is an inherent and implicit act of rejecting or not accepting the police 'B-report,' and thus, the absence of specific language stating rejection does not render the cognizance order illegal. Secondly, the Court noted that the complainant had, in fact, explained the 14-day delay in lodging the FIR, attributing it to the process of consulting her children. Therefore, the High Court was incorrect in concluding that the delay was unexplained or indicative of embellishment. The Supreme Court decided not to delve into the merits of the 'mala fide complaint' argument, leaving it open for the High Court to consider afresh.
- Emphasis on Procedural Fairness
- Upholding Judicial Discretion
- Preventing Miscarriage of Justice by Technicalities
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Leave granted.
- 2.The impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.2882 of 2019 is set aside.
- 3.Criminal Petition No.2882 of 2019 is restored to its original file before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
- 4.The restored Petition would be decided afresh on its own merits after considering all arguments that may be raised by the parties before the High Court.
Precedential Assessment
Binding (SC)
This is a decision by the Supreme Court, which clarifies fundamental procedural aspects of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning cognizance by Magistrates and the High Court's power to quash proceedings, making it binding on all lower courts.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Case Registered
Listed On:
11 Jul 2024
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2860 OF 2024 [ARISING FROM SLP (Crl.) No. 10695/2023]
VEERAPPA REDDY APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AMBUJAKSHI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2024.07.12 17:45:39 IST Reason:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.2882 of 2019.
3. The mother of the appellant lodged a complaint which was registered as FIR No.205 of 2006. After due investigation, police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted exonerating all the accused.
4. Protest Petition was filed by the appellant's mother and the sworn statement of the complainant was also recorded, whereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Signature Not Verified
Court registered as Criminal Petition No.2882 of 2019.
5. High Court, by the impugned order dated 01.02.2023, has allowed the said petition and quashed the proceedings. Two reasons have been given by the High Court in allowing the said petition. Firstly, that the Magistrate ought to have rejected the B-report (Final Report) before taking cognizance, which he had not done and as such the order taking cognizance was illegal. The second reason as given is that as the F.I.R. was registered belatedly after about 14 days without any explanation, there was sufficient chance of embellishment and after thought.
6. In our considered view, the High Court fell in error in quashing the proceedings. The ground that there was a delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint was explained. The complainant had mentioned in the complaint that delay has been caused in the process of consulting her children. Secondly, once the Magistrate takes cognizance, it is inherent that the said B-report (Final Report) stands rejected or not accepted by the Magistrate. Merely because a specific language
2
to that effect was not used does not mean that the cognizance order would be bad in law.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has sought to argue that it was a malafide complaint lodged by the mother-in-law against the son-in-law and his family members as other civil and criminal cases were pending between the parties.
8. We are not going into further merits of the case and would leave it open for the High Court to decide the same afresh as the reasons given by the High Court do not appeal to us.
9. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the Criminal Petition No.2882 of 2019 to its original file before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
10. The said Petition would be decided afresh on its own merits after considering all arguments that may be raised by the parties before the High Court.
....................,J. (VIKRAM NATH)
....................,J. (PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE)
NEW DELHI; JULY 11, 2024. 3
ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10695/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-02-2023 in CRLP No. 2882/2019 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru)
VEERAPPA REDDY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
AMBUJAKSHI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 172395/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 11-07-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shanthakumar V. Mahale, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Pande, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.r., AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Diwakar K, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gagan V, Adv. Mr. Saket Gogia, Adv. Ms. Sheetal Maggon, Adv. Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, AOR
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS (RANJANA SHAILEY) COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file.)